Good article but I think it does not adequately cover 2 points:
1 Timefame. A Russian victory now that allows a rematch in 5 years' time is actually a defeat. 101 war politics is to defeat your enemy to such an extent that they can never [or at least in several lifetimes] threaten you again. To do this Russia bascially needs something akin to the unconditional surrender of Ukraine and some sort of political accomodation with the West over its [IMHO] ultimate dismemberment. This objective is rational but will increase the stakes and encourage NATO escaltion and "doubling down". This is not about killing the Ukrainian military NOw but ensuring it never again becomes a threat AND NATO influence is permanently removed - especially from Odessa.
2 You assume Western political leaders are (a) rational and (b) well informed. I doubt either is the case. I very much hope the author is right but fear that the past is a good guide to the future. We have seen nothing substantive yet that really suggests anything other than a slow boiled frog syndrome and a drift to war amongst most western political leaders. We [I am western] appear to have second rate military and intelligence organisations also, and diplomatic corps that are contradictions in terms. So IMHO the lunatics are in charge of the "West's" assylum. Human stupidity and hubris should not be underestimated. History is replete with examples of non-rational behaviour. Very dangerous in the nuclear era, especially now the "end of history" has supposed to have occurred.
When considering the lead ups to World War I and World War II one could imagine the possibility that a broader frame exists within which to consider the current events in Ukraine. Before WW1, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo was a trigger, but the big events sources lay deeper in a web of alliances, militarization, special interests group (big industry and the fantasies of high level gov/"high society" people being perhaps the most notable) considerations across Europe, and the various games played because of all that, which were less singuarly spectacular but still far more contributive. Similarly, the lead-up to WW2 saw not just direct aggressions like Germany's invasion of Poland, but also a series of lesser-noticed moves across Asia and Africa, such as Italy's invasion of Ethiopia and Japan's expansion into China, which were part of a broader destabilizing game, also driven by the confluence of many interest groups.
This might suggest that the situation in Ukraine might also be seen in a broader context of global games with associated regional conflicts during a time of big power shifts. Events in Asia and Africa and MENA (is that even it? Now or soon?) today, such as territorial disputes in the South China Sea and militant activities in the Sahel region and Israel VS [ ], though seemingly unrelated, could be part of a global realignment of power and influence and the associated games of interests groups jockying to hold on to what they've got/get more that mirrors the preludes to past global conflicts. While direct military conflict involving major powers like those in the World Wars might seem unlikely, the interconnectedness of all this suggests a very complicated, multi-dimensional (many-dimensional?) dynamic that can escalate in unpredictable ways.
With a regrettably large number of U. S. citizens still believing that Ukraine is only a squadron of F-16 fighters away from evicting the Russian Federation forces; exactly how the bitter end gets massaged by their (my) government is going to requires a thoughtful piece along the lines of this Aurelien essay.
I do not expect an admission that our weapons systems are overpriced, overly complicated and too brittle for peer level combat. What I do expect is the exhortation that we, the citizens have usurped too much of the nation's bounty and need to sacrifice for a massive uptick in inventories of these mechanical boondoggles.
I do not expect an admission that our military has no concept of how to conduct a real war. I do expect conscription to become a reality for our young once TikTok gets ripped off their phones.
I do expect many forms of trial balloons floated to explain away this unnecessary loss of international prestige by our government.
"If you have been a reasonably conscientious observer of the crisis in Ukraine since 2021, you will have found it harder and harder recently to make sense of what’s happening, or supposed to be happening, in and around that country. Even when it looks as though government statements and authoritative-sounding pundit pronouncements are actually accurate, they don’t necessarily seem to make much sense. Given the often conflicting claims of different governments, the special pleading of different pundits, and the complete failure of alleged “experts” of different types even to understand what they are seeing, getting a sense of what is actually happening, and what might happen next, sometimes seems impossible."
These statements don't need to make sense, and in fact, it does not matter whether these statements make sense or even are internally coherent (Russia is collapsing and at the same time about to overrun europe!) as long as they deliver the war that the rulers want.
Anyway, the sociopaths who rule over us have already invested so much materiele and reputational capital into Ukraine, already upended civil liberties at home and pretended that an act of war by the United did not happen, that they cannot back out now. Since there are not immediate costs for doubling down, that is what they will continue to do, until full-blown WWIII.
Let's not forget the Black Swan -- I mean White Swan -- of the unsustainable economic situation in the US. Today's US is not the Arsenal of Democracy which outproduced Germany & Japan in WWII. Today's US is significantly de-industrialized, deeply indebted, running a dangerous Trade Deficit, and giving neutral countries significant reason to doubt the value of holding financial reserves as US Dollars. China could cause chaos in the US simply by interrupting exports to the US and selling US bonds. At some point, that economic exposure will impact US ability to influence events.
My guess remains that what it will take to end the fighting is
(a) the Ukraine concedes territory to Russia or to new Russian-majority republics, and
(b) rump Ukraine accepts de-militarization with its neutrality guaranteed by a large heavily-armed UN-mandated Chinese peace-keeping force to ensure that both US/NATO and Russia stay out. Rump Ukraine will welcome this because China will also provide funds for reconstruction.
Of course, it is likely that the DC Swamp may try to veto that UN mandate -- at which point China may have to flex its economic muscles.
Thanks for this perspective. One bit of Western propaganda, very subtle, is to zoom all the way in on Ukraine with maps. This conceals the massive size of the conflict in question. Ukraine is a very big country. For comparison, the front line in the war is roughly the distance from the Gulf of Mexico to *St. Louis* - Or another comparison, roughly the entire length of California. Or yet another comparison, it's longer than the front line between Germany and France in WWI.
It's very big. When Western media says, "We sent twenty tanks!" it should be interpreted in light of such distances.
The Russians have set up a radio frequency for Ukrainian troops to request surrender. And many Ukrainian troops, in the way of small formations, have in fact surrendered. The last I read was that Russia has somewhere around 10k Ukrainian troops in captivity. Ukraine has very few Russians though; not even enough for frequent prisoner swaps (at this point).
However, one wonders how this will all play out. I expect the Russians will take Eastern Ukraine to the river and likely Southern as well. The latter thought though is very speculative--the West seems fixated on Odessa and may try something foolish to keep it. One never knows for sure. We'll see how it all plays out.
Concerning western escalation: we've been hearing for over two years now that escalation would be foolhardy, that the West cannot escalate, won't escalate, doesn't have or cannot spare the resources to escalate, that escalation is unpopular.
The West escalates anyway.
For that matter, it beggars belief that there is nobody in Whitehall or the Champ d' Elysee that can tell Sunak or Macron that he needs to quit letting his mouth write checks (cheques) that his ass cannot cash.
Zelensky may have to go the way of Kaiser Bill in 1918 or the way of the last Tsar.
When enough less than die hards….
NATO performance does not disprove theories of mechanized assault, it insists that the battle space be organized around screens and air/missile defenses, things NATO could not do for distances and available stores.
As to NATO running out of stores, that may apply to EU and UK, but US has massive war reserves, enough to keep Ukraine going, and if intent could get president drawdown for stores set aside for other theaters. That eventuality might please Kim Il jun.
NATO seems to think it could win with bombing, ignoring Vietnam, and the GWOT results.
Hope Kiev has a general who could depose Kaiser Wlod. And NATO get out of the way. World does not need a Thieu like puppet in Kiev.
Good article but I think it does not adequately cover 2 points:
1 Timefame. A Russian victory now that allows a rematch in 5 years' time is actually a defeat. 101 war politics is to defeat your enemy to such an extent that they can never [or at least in several lifetimes] threaten you again. To do this Russia bascially needs something akin to the unconditional surrender of Ukraine and some sort of political accomodation with the West over its [IMHO] ultimate dismemberment. This objective is rational but will increase the stakes and encourage NATO escaltion and "doubling down". This is not about killing the Ukrainian military NOw but ensuring it never again becomes a threat AND NATO influence is permanently removed - especially from Odessa.
2 You assume Western political leaders are (a) rational and (b) well informed. I doubt either is the case. I very much hope the author is right but fear that the past is a good guide to the future. We have seen nothing substantive yet that really suggests anything other than a slow boiled frog syndrome and a drift to war amongst most western political leaders. We [I am western] appear to have second rate military and intelligence organisations also, and diplomatic corps that are contradictions in terms. So IMHO the lunatics are in charge of the "West's" assylum. Human stupidity and hubris should not be underestimated. History is replete with examples of non-rational behaviour. Very dangerous in the nuclear era, especially now the "end of history" has supposed to have occurred.
Very well written and informative as usual!
RE: "So we’re not heading for World War III?"
When considering the lead ups to World War I and World War II one could imagine the possibility that a broader frame exists within which to consider the current events in Ukraine. Before WW1, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo was a trigger, but the big events sources lay deeper in a web of alliances, militarization, special interests group (big industry and the fantasies of high level gov/"high society" people being perhaps the most notable) considerations across Europe, and the various games played because of all that, which were less singuarly spectacular but still far more contributive. Similarly, the lead-up to WW2 saw not just direct aggressions like Germany's invasion of Poland, but also a series of lesser-noticed moves across Asia and Africa, such as Italy's invasion of Ethiopia and Japan's expansion into China, which were part of a broader destabilizing game, also driven by the confluence of many interest groups.
This might suggest that the situation in Ukraine might also be seen in a broader context of global games with associated regional conflicts during a time of big power shifts. Events in Asia and Africa and MENA (is that even it? Now or soon?) today, such as territorial disputes in the South China Sea and militant activities in the Sahel region and Israel VS [ ], though seemingly unrelated, could be part of a global realignment of power and influence and the associated games of interests groups jockying to hold on to what they've got/get more that mirrors the preludes to past global conflicts. While direct military conflict involving major powers like those in the World Wars might seem unlikely, the interconnectedness of all this suggests a very complicated, multi-dimensional (many-dimensional?) dynamic that can escalate in unpredictable ways.
With a regrettably large number of U. S. citizens still believing that Ukraine is only a squadron of F-16 fighters away from evicting the Russian Federation forces; exactly how the bitter end gets massaged by their (my) government is going to requires a thoughtful piece along the lines of this Aurelien essay.
I do not expect an admission that our weapons systems are overpriced, overly complicated and too brittle for peer level combat. What I do expect is the exhortation that we, the citizens have usurped too much of the nation's bounty and need to sacrifice for a massive uptick in inventories of these mechanical boondoggles.
I do not expect an admission that our military has no concept of how to conduct a real war. I do expect conscription to become a reality for our young once TikTok gets ripped off their phones.
I do expect many forms of trial balloons floated to explain away this unnecessary loss of international prestige by our government.
"If you have been a reasonably conscientious observer of the crisis in Ukraine since 2021, you will have found it harder and harder recently to make sense of what’s happening, or supposed to be happening, in and around that country. Even when it looks as though government statements and authoritative-sounding pundit pronouncements are actually accurate, they don’t necessarily seem to make much sense. Given the often conflicting claims of different governments, the special pleading of different pundits, and the complete failure of alleged “experts” of different types even to understand what they are seeing, getting a sense of what is actually happening, and what might happen next, sometimes seems impossible."
These statements don't need to make sense, and in fact, it does not matter whether these statements make sense or even are internally coherent (Russia is collapsing and at the same time about to overrun europe!) as long as they deliver the war that the rulers want.
Anyway, the sociopaths who rule over us have already invested so much materiele and reputational capital into Ukraine, already upended civil liberties at home and pretended that an act of war by the United did not happen, that they cannot back out now. Since there are not immediate costs for doubling down, that is what they will continue to do, until full-blown WWIII.
Thank you Aurelien🙏
Let's not forget the Black Swan -- I mean White Swan -- of the unsustainable economic situation in the US. Today's US is not the Arsenal of Democracy which outproduced Germany & Japan in WWII. Today's US is significantly de-industrialized, deeply indebted, running a dangerous Trade Deficit, and giving neutral countries significant reason to doubt the value of holding financial reserves as US Dollars. China could cause chaos in the US simply by interrupting exports to the US and selling US bonds. At some point, that economic exposure will impact US ability to influence events.
My guess remains that what it will take to end the fighting is
(a) the Ukraine concedes territory to Russia or to new Russian-majority republics, and
(b) rump Ukraine accepts de-militarization with its neutrality guaranteed by a large heavily-armed UN-mandated Chinese peace-keeping force to ensure that both US/NATO and Russia stay out. Rump Ukraine will welcome this because China will also provide funds for reconstruction.
Of course, it is likely that the DC Swamp may try to veto that UN mandate -- at which point China may have to flex its economic muscles.
Thanks for this perspective. One bit of Western propaganda, very subtle, is to zoom all the way in on Ukraine with maps. This conceals the massive size of the conflict in question. Ukraine is a very big country. For comparison, the front line in the war is roughly the distance from the Gulf of Mexico to *St. Louis* - Or another comparison, roughly the entire length of California. Or yet another comparison, it's longer than the front line between Germany and France in WWI.
It's very big. When Western media says, "We sent twenty tanks!" it should be interpreted in light of such distances.
The Russians have set up a radio frequency for Ukrainian troops to request surrender. And many Ukrainian troops, in the way of small formations, have in fact surrendered. The last I read was that Russia has somewhere around 10k Ukrainian troops in captivity. Ukraine has very few Russians though; not even enough for frequent prisoner swaps (at this point).
However, one wonders how this will all play out. I expect the Russians will take Eastern Ukraine to the river and likely Southern as well. The latter thought though is very speculative--the West seems fixated on Odessa and may try something foolish to keep it. One never knows for sure. We'll see how it all plays out.
Concerning western escalation: we've been hearing for over two years now that escalation would be foolhardy, that the West cannot escalate, won't escalate, doesn't have or cannot spare the resources to escalate, that escalation is unpopular.
The West escalates anyway.
For that matter, it beggars belief that there is nobody in Whitehall or the Champ d' Elysee that can tell Sunak or Macron that he needs to quit letting his mouth write checks (cheques) that his ass cannot cash.
Sorry for the delay...
Here an italian translation:
https://trying2understandw.blogspot.com/2024/04/ucraina-una-guida-per-i-piu-curiosi-la.html
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/04/24/politics/us-secretly-sent-long-range-missiles-to-ukraine.
If further proof that NATO has lost all fear of Russia were needed.
I wish I could say otherwise.
Zelensky may have to go the way of Kaiser Bill in 1918 or the way of the last Tsar.
When enough less than die hards….
NATO performance does not disprove theories of mechanized assault, it insists that the battle space be organized around screens and air/missile defenses, things NATO could not do for distances and available stores.
As to NATO running out of stores, that may apply to EU and UK, but US has massive war reserves, enough to keep Ukraine going, and if intent could get president drawdown for stores set aside for other theaters. That eventuality might please Kim Il jun.
NATO seems to think it could win with bombing, ignoring Vietnam, and the GWOT results.
Hope Kiev has a general who could depose Kaiser Wlod. And NATO get out of the way. World does not need a Thieu like puppet in Kiev.